* I was told at about 11 this morning that in twenty minutes or so paperwork would be filed to remove the parliamentary hold from Senate Bill 1, the education funding reform bill. That hasn’t happened yet. Gov. Rauner has said he will immediately issue an amendatory veto once it gets to his desk, but I’m informed that negotiations took place this morning. I’m not sure when exactly that hold will be removed, so stay tuned and keep an eye on the live coverage post for updates.

All that is going to unfold over the next few days, could have been resolved last month. The bill will be released. The Governor will veto. The legislature will meet. They will override the veto. Holding the bill since it’s passage makes my fellow Democrats complicit in this faux crisis. If we had acted like representatives of the people, instead of politicians, this coming week would have already played out.

The reason SB1 is so politically toxic for Rauner, in the overall, is the fact that even the act of accepting the changes with the AV, it’s risky, given Rauner’s AV could, possibly, fail to be accepted and all state funding for schools is lost.

Nothing is guaranteed.

It’s the same reason a “double-play” is assumed. There aren’t errors for failed double plays because of that.

This is a double-play ball, one out (AV Veto) could be completed, doesn’t mean the second out (override or acceptance) is a guarantee too.

Let’s assume for the moment there is no veto. I would still ask, what purpose was served for the people by my party postponing delivery of the bill until today? I would suggest none - no purpose was served for the people by my party delaying the delivery of the bill until today. It simply makes Democrats complicit in the creation of a faux crisis that could have been resolved properly a month ago.

Today in Springfield Governor Bruce Rauner vetoed the education funding for State of Illinois schools.
That will be the quote leading all TV news stories today. 5, 6 and 10, plus all of tomorrow mornings newscasts and morning papers. In the papers it’ll say Veto in bold letters and a picture of Bruce.
There will be some explanation but almost everyone will only hear -Rauner ……..veto…….. education.

@ cdog - It is hard to say. The point I was trying to make last week and above, is that when the rules of parliamentary procedure are used to serve the interests of the majority party or a minority party, the interests of the represented are being ignored for political gain by the few. Parliamentary procedure was created specifically to avoid the tyrany of a majority party and the tyrany of a minority party. In the U.S. Senate, we are now hearing calls for a return to regular order, after nearly a decade of abusing “the rules” for party gain, rather than for the purpose of the commongood. At present in Illinois Government, the goal is to abuse the rules in order to avoid the task of legislating through compromise. In this context, I suggest Democrats and Republican are equally complicit in skirting the purpose of adopting Roberts’ Rules, and the purpose of representative governance.

OW…I hear you. I’m trying to be positive! lol! But seriously, I think there are some school districts who are in pretty bad shape that are in the exact districts where the Universities are in pretty bad shape and they are in Republican districts. So the time between the veto and the August 13 is plenty of time to come up with some face saving negotiation to make this situation go away.

And that is the reason I think they didn’t send the bill. Rauner’s been saying he would veto it forever. (the famous Purvis comment). After the intensity of the budget impasse, getting everybody back in town to vote is a tough reality when you have to corral 177 people. Lots of whom had to get second jobs when they went 7 months with no pay, and lots who have family plans and planned vacations and district responsibilities to attend to and have had to deal with the Governor making this so incredibly political. Since when is a bill that you like 90 percent of evil? If he would let people vote their own districts, this wouldn’t be an issue at all.

@ Captain Ed Smith - You may well be right about not being at the point of change yet. Still one can hope for some sort of wakeup moment. *smile* As to Mason’s Rules v. Roberts’ Rules, I tend to use the term Roberts’ Rules generically, as a substitute for parliamentary procedure in general, since it is the original source from which other forms evolve (e.g., Mason’s Stugis, etc). All of these models however are fairly similar in their rules, and exactly similar in their purpose. Also, I just like the sound of Roberts’ rules.

Votes from downstate are necessary to override expected veto from Governor. Downstate schools are most likely to close first without state education funding. Obvious strategy is to wait long enough for a school shutdown in some districts to become enough of a possibility that downstate legislators have ‘cover’ to vote in favor of override. Something like, ‘I did not want to vote for the override, but what choice did I really have?’ It is not a nice strategy, but I understand how it might function.

Governor wants AV to reallocate $140 million from CPS to downstate. This amount is less than 5% of state education budget affected by new formula. It is also less than 1% of state backlog of bills. Do downstate Republican legislators really want to support the Governor on this issue? It seems to me that many of the same legislators that voted to override in July to avoid junk status would vote to override in late August to avoid schools closing. This amount of money is just not worth a prolonged crisis.

Mikki Lindstrom w/ WAND just tweeted that the Senate Dems may not send SB 1 to Governor Rauner today. Come on. Just send him the bill. Unless the talks today made massive or unforeseen progress then just sent Governor Rauner the bill and deal with the aftermath. Nothing is happening until actual movement occurs.

In this case, the rules are trying to help everyone take a needed pause so everyone understands this game of Chicken can bring serious and “dangerous” consequences if all parties aren’t clear on what steps are next.

Ignoring that, or ignoring President Cullerton’s “explanation of consequences” and seeing the black and white “Roberts Rules” versus the “Rules of the Chamber(s)”, even decrying the rules (which generally is more than rational, just not with this situation) is pontificating.

Robert, I agree. Especially when you say, “interests of the represented are being ignored for political gain by the few.”

I believe that the post today, dealing with all the members leaving the two chambers, is evidence of those same members not wanting to participate anymore with the various rulers’ game rules and being complicit with “political gain of a few” by ignoring the interest of the represented.